Isn’t part of the problem with straws that turtles see them and try to eat them? Clearly that’s what this image is depicting.

“[Horse Armor] must have been [sold] in the millions, it had to be millions,” Nesmith said. “I don’t know the actual number, I probably did at one point, I just no longer remember that. And that was kind of a head shaker for us: you’re all making fun of it and yet you buy it.”

And that right there is the reason why the industry is absolutely saturated with this shit now. If people had just chilled the fuck out when this shit was first introduced, made sure it was an absolute flop from a sales perspective (not only for this one, but for others that were released back then, too), we might be in a better place now.

This is the shit government should be working to correct, if they weren’t all in it for the money just as much as the corporations.

Corporations and the general population have an innately antagonistic relationship. Corporations want to make as much money as possible, the general population wants to spend as little as possible, so their goals are diametrically opposed. (I’m pooling Uber drivers in with the general population here, because they’re in the same position - being opposed to Uber’s goals.)

Corporations inherently hold more power in this relationship; they have more money than even large groups of individuals, so they can hire expensive teams of lawyers and accountants and professionals of all kinds to further their goals, while it’s difficult if not impossible for normal folks to organize against a corporation in any meaningful way.

In a system that worked, the government would be working to protect the population from corporate interests. They’d be spending the bulk of their time identifying and closing loopholes like this one, and enacting laws to make exploiting these loopholes not worth it, and generally would be the arm of the people.

Instead, corporations pay government, and the government looks the other way - if not directly supports them - while they fuck over everyone they can - and the planet, while they’re at it -to reap wealth. And this shit is the result.

I’d actually be interested to see a cost breakdown between this and just buying a newspaper subscription; it looks like he spent about $100 on materials, plus then there’s the ongoing costs of electricity (negligible), printer ribbons, and paper. Ribbons appear to be about $1 / ea if you buy in bulk, and I don’t recall how much printing you get out of a single ribbon, but let’s assume a 24 pack is enough to last you a year. Paper seems to be about $30 / 1000 sheets, so assuming he sticks to the single-page-per-day format, that’ll last almost 3 years.

So up front costs, $100 Ongoing costs, $35 / year, roughly.

Newspaper subscription is about $150 / year, so this’ll actually be cost effective if he keeps it up. Of course, you’re getting a lot less news than you would from a newspaper subscription, so the relative value is questionable there.

I swear some of those long-form video essays on games have longer runtimes than it would take to just play through the game from start to finish, but that’s okay, I’m still here for it. Love me some excruciatingly in-depth analysis of video game minutia.

The Harris-Walz campaign is specifically amplifying his hometown roots in their own messaging… It’s how they want us to view him. I’d say it’d be more biased if the article painted him as nothing but a seasoned politician.

The example in the article reduces a recipe print from 47 pages to 1 by using AI to remove all of the filler garbage and leaves just the recipe instructions. Slightly different than just rearranging elements.

GTA4 is 16 years old at this point. Why would you expect it to support DirectX12, which is 7 years newer than the game?

My favorite analogy for this, and the one that really made me ‘get it’, was posted on Reddit a number of years ago, and was something to the effect of:

Imagine you’re sitting around the dinner table with your family, and your dad is passing around a bowl of mashed potatoes. However, instead of handing it to you, it gets passed right by you to your sister. And you speak up and say, “I should get some, too!” Your dad looks at you and says, “Everyone should get some,” and the family continues passing the bowl around as before. And you’re thinking, yes, that’s true - everyone should get some, but only one of us is not getting any right now and pointing out that everyone should get some doesn’t make me any less hungry.

Clearly they won’t hesitate to wipe Palestine out completely, so are they, really?

Hi - I’m a Linux newbie.

I don’t tell other Linux users that I use linux because it almost always leads to a bunch of questions that I don’t know the answer to. So let me assure you, that awkwardness is on both sides of that conversation you’re describing.

It’s not like I’m sitting here actively supporting the genocide. I’ve been speaking out against Israel since this conflict started. Look, here I am being critical of Israel 10 months ago.

But I’m going to level with you - if I was going to choose a single issue to base my vote on, it wouldn’t be this. It would be climate change. I’d throw in my cap with whomever had the most decisive, immediate plan to cut fossil fuels and major pollutants, enact climate-friendly policies, and put 100% of our budget and focus into reversing as much of the damage we’ve caused as possible, because I think that’s a much bigger issue than Gaza, or Ukraine, or anything else.

Compared to that, which is a global problem, I think any individual nation’s conflicts are pretty trivial. It trumps genocide, it trumps fascism, it trumps everything.

If Trump and the GOP have their way, there won’t be another election cycle. Maybe you need to think beyond this one, too.

99% Hitler

Well, I guess this conversation is 99% over, then.

Where along the DNC’s journey to the right do you hop off? Is it never?

When we have a viable progressive candidate. Until then, I’m going to continue being a pragmatist and vote for the candidate that I think is better among those who have a chance to win, rather than waste my vote trying to make an idealistic point.

Even if it were the case that both were exactly identical, then you’d have to admit that your vote won’t matter for Palestine, and you should base it on other factors, so why don’t you tell me which of Trump’s policies you’re okay with having in exchange for the opportunity to take the idealistic stance in this election?

We can sit here and quote conflicting sources at each other all night, and it’s clear that neither of us is going to sway the other, so we probably should just shake hands and agree to disagree, but fuck it, I’m not doing anything else, so I’ll start. Here’s one. Okay, your turn.

I’m so sick of this horrible take. You do realize that, of the two candidates who have a chance to win this election, neither are good for Palestine, but one is worse, right? It’s not like Donald Fucking Trump is out there campaigning on cutting off arms to Israel and supporting Palestine.

You give me an actual viable candidate who has a chance of actually winning an election in the US and I’ll give them my vote, but right now, what’re you proposing? Voting third party? Why, exactly? Do you only value “taking a stand”, or are you actually trying to do what’s in everyone’s best interest?

The problem is really that republicans keep putting up the worst possible candidates and policies. If the choice was “A sort of bad candidate or another sort of bad candidate”, we’d all happily vote third party and if the slightly-worse-but-not-appreciably-so candidate won as a result, it wouldn’t be a huge hurdle and over a few election cycles we could maybe effect change.

Instead, in that scenario, it leads to Trump and Project 2025 and I’d love to hear your explanation of how that helps us get progressive candidates into office, because I just don’t see it.

I’m a “single issue voter” and that “single issue” is that I don’t want another Trump presidency, so I’ll vote strategically to prevent that from happening, even if I’d much rather have someone else.

The answer can be found by looking at how most of the commercial open source products are monetized. Software hosting and technical support are quite lucrative if the software is valuable.

This only applies to some software, though, no? Like, let’s say a group of folks make a game or something, and release it as FOSS. Assuming they’re not hobbyists, and this is their career, how are they covering costs and making a living on that?

How do content creators get paid?

Largely through sponsorships, I think, right? Sponsorships and crowdfunding, but both of those require some measure of notoriety. It’s an unfortunate case where you have to spend a lot of effort doing it effectively unpaid until you get a following large enough to bring in sponsorship money or ad revenue or donations. Or you need to be a pretty woman who’s willing to monetize that, that seems to have a much lower barrier to entry.

Out of curiosity, under this system, how do the people writing the software get paid? Are they all dependent on donations?